In order for the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service to subrogate the right to claim damages against a third party of a beneficiary pursuant to Article 87 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, whether the right to claim damages should be identical to the insurance benefits paid by the Service (affirmative); and in case where the amount of medical care benefits and nursing benefits paid by the Corporation exceeds the amount of actual damage, whether the beneficiary may subrogate the right to claim damages for future medical expenses and future nursing expenses based on

Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 200Da45419 delivered on April 12, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1083)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Na10360 decided April 19, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The main text of Article 87(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that “Where insurance benefits have been paid due to a disaster committed by a third party, the Service shall subrogate the third party to the claim for damages against the person who received the benefits within the limit of the amount of such benefits.” Here, “the claim for damages against the third party by the person who received the benefits” is limited to those of the same nature as the insurance benefits paid by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da45419, Apr. 12, 2002). Medical care benefits and nursing benefits provided for in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act are all active damages, and they are in a relationship between civil and nursing expenses. However, even if they are for the same medical treatment or nursing expenses, they do not have any relationship between the existing medical care benefits and nursing expenses, and thus, they cannot subrogate the claim for damages for future medical treatment expenses and nursing expenses based on such excess amount.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the medical care benefits and nursing benefits paid by the plaintiff were paid for the medical care expenses and the care expenses for the future, while the medical care expenses are paid for the future after the date of closing argument in the court below and do not have complementary relationship with each other in terms of its nature, such as the period of payment and the method of calculating the amount to be paid. Thus, the plaintiff cannot subrogate the right to claim damages related to the medical care benefits and nursing expenses

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal provisions and legal principles as seen earlier, the judgment below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)